To describe the perceived qualities of successful palliative care (PC) providers in the emergency department (ED), barriers and facilitators to ED–PC, and clinicians’ perspectives on the future of ED–PC.

This qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in June–August 2020. Interviews were analyzed via a two-phase Rapid Analysis. The study's primary outcomes (innovations in ED–PC during COVID) are published elsewhere. In this secondary analysis, we examine interviewee responses to broader questions about ED–PC currently and in the future.

PC providers perceived as successful in their work in the ED were described as autonomous, competent, flexible, fast, and fluent in ED language and culture. Barriers to ED–PC integration included the ED environment, lack of access to PC providers at all times, the ED perception of PC, and the lack of a supporting financial model. Facilitators to ED–PC integration included proactive identification of patients who would benefit from PC, ED-focused PC education and tools, PC presence in the ED, and data supporting ED–PC. Increased primary PC education for ED staff, increased automation, and innovative ED–PC models were seen as areas for future growth.

Our findings provide useful information for PC programs considering expanding their ED presence, particularly as this is the first study to our knowledge that examines traits of successful PC providers in the ED environment. Our findings also suggest that, despite growth in the arena of ED–PC, barriers and facilitators remain similar to those identified previously. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact that ED–PC initiatives may have on patient and system outcomes, to identify a financial model to maintain ED–PC integration, and to examine whether perceptions of successful providers align with objective measures of the same.

Although important treatment decisions are made in the Emergency Department (ED), conversations about patients’ goals and values and priorities often do not occur. There is a critical need to improve the frequency of these conversations, so that ED providers can align treatment plans with these goals, values, and priorities. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide has been used in other care settings and has been demonstrated to improve the frequency, quality, and timing of conversations, but it has not been used in the ED setting. Additionally, ED social workers, although integrated into hospital and home-based palliative care, have not been engaged in programs to advance serious illness conversations in the ED. We set out to adapt the Serious Illness Conversation Guide for use in the ED by social workers.

We undertook a four-phase process for the adaptation of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide for use in the ED by social workers. This included simulated testing exercises, pilot testing, and deployment with patients in the ED.

During each phase of the Guide's adaptation, changes were made to reflect both the environment of care (ED) and the clinicians (social workers) that would be using the Guide. A final guide is presented.

This report presents an adapted Serious Illness Conversation Guide for use in the ED by social workers. This Guide may provide a tool that can be used to increase the frequency and quality of serious illness conversations in the ED.